Form of Argument (redux)

[Tiassa]

A simple question about form of argument:

• Member A makes assertion.
• Member B offers counterpoint.
• Member A ignores counterpoint, repeats assertion.

Now, sometimes people will repeat themselves immediately, and sometimes they will let it pass, and at some point in the future, perhaps in a different thread, reiterate the original assertion without ever having addressed the counterpoint.

Is this what you would call a good form of argument? Is it even valid as a form of argument?

(The previous version of this thread had irreconcilable poll error. Sorry about that.)

[draqon]

Tiassa there is no God.

[draqon]

now offer me a counterpoint!

[leopold99]

Is this what you would call a good form of argument? Is it even valid as a form of argument?

the ignored counterpoint might be from a poster on A's ignore list.
other than that the counterpoint should at least be acknowledged.

it could also be unintelligible to A. in this case A should ask for clarification.

[Varda]

I'm going to ignore the subject of this thread and post a picture of a kitten.

http://kittenbliss.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/kpjas_kitten_500.jpg

[draqon]

I am going to ignore Varda's posted picture of a kitten and write this sentence.

[Tiassa]

Tiassa there is no God.

• • •

now offer me a counterpoint!

Why would I? That outcome is acceptable to me.

I might, were I so inclined, press for a definition of the word "God". It's rather quite subjective a word.

• • •


the ignored counterpoint might be from a poster on A's ignore list.
other than that the counterpoint should at least be acknowledged.

it could also be unintelligible to A. in this case A should ask for clarification.

Excellent points. For our purposes, though, we can presume that Member A does not have B on ignore.

[Simon Anders]

A simple question about form of argument:

• Member A makes assertion.
• Member B offers counterpoint.
• Member A ignores counterpoint, repeats assertion.

Now, sometimes people will repeat themselves immediately, and sometimes they will let it pass, and at some point in the future, perhaps in a different thread, reiterate the original assertion without ever having addressed the counterpoint.

Is this what you would call a good form of argument? Is it even valid as a form of argument?

(The previous version of this thread had irreconcilable poll error. Sorry about that.)
A related phenomenon of this is when someone says 'that was a bad/weak/silly argument' and that is the complete counterpoint.

For a while I responded to these AS IF the onus was on me to make my point stronger/better etc.

As far as your point. No, it is not a good argument. However, I prefer it over the above. No claim of valid dismissal has been made or implied.

[Tiassa]

A related phenomenon of this is when someone says 'that was a bad/weak/silly argument' and that is the complete counterpoint.

I encountered an argument not too long ago in which a member rejected scholars on the grounds that their opinions were no more or less than the member's.

Now, an argument can be made that my opinion of a scholarly work or explanation is no more or less than the member's, but I don't think it's unreasonable to grant certain weight of authority in explanations of legal history to, well, scholars at a prestigious law school. I don't think it's unreasonable to grant a certain weight of authority in explanations of social history to a specialized historian.

I mean, who are you going to trust? A doctor who runs the tests, considers the results, and says you're healthy, or some random person who tells you you're dying of cancer? Who here would take legal advice from me over an attorney?

And, in some cases, when those "opinions" that are no more or less than a given member's happen to come from, say, the United States Supreme Court, well, I think the justices' opinions have a bit more argumentative weight than my own, or any other member of Sciforums.

The only thing I can't figure out is whether someone is claiming to be an equivalent expert, or whether experts have no expertise. Perhaps there's no difference. I guess that's something else I haven't figured out.

[Simon Anders]

I encountered an argument not too long ago in which a member rejected scholars on the grounds that their opinions were no more or less than the member's.

Now, an argument can be made that my opinion of a scholarly work or explanation is no more or less than the member's, but I don't think it's unreasonable to grant certain weight of authority in explanations of legal history to, well, scholars at a prestigious law school. I don't think it's unreasonable to grant a certain weight of authority in explanations of social history to a specialized historian.

I mean, who are you going to trust? A doctor who runs the tests, considers the results, and says you're healthy, or some random person who tells you you're dying of cancer? Who here would take legal advice from me over an attorney?

And, in some cases, when those "opinions" that are no more or less than a given member's happen to come from, say, the United States Supreme Court, well, I think the justices' opinions have a bit more argumentative weight than my own, or any other member of Sciforums.

The only thing I can't figure out is whether someone is claiming to be an equivalent expert, or whether experts have no expertise. Perhaps there's no difference. I guess that's something else I haven't figured out.
I don't think I can agree to a rule in support of what you are saying. Minority lay opinions have been right and it is good that some lay people have stubbornly refused to weigh expert opinion as heavier than their own. Issues related to racism and sexism come to mind first, but I am sure a whole range of other issues could also be brought up by examples. Ciggarettes were even recommended by doctors for a while.

I realize that your explanation clearly does not say that experts should be assumed correct, but then how does one weigh an experts opinion as more likely to be correct than your own AND maintain you think you are right.

In your examples, related to law, I am right with you. But in other fields....And perhaps certain lay people in relation to the law SHOULD not assume expert opinions are more likely to be correct on specific issues.

These lay people should, however, realize that third parties are likely not to take them as seriously as experts without the presentation of a strong case. That is where irrationality comes in.

And perhaps that is what you meant all along and I have been rambling on a tangent.

[Killjoy]

I'm going to ignore the subject of this thread and post a picture of a kitten.

http://kittenbliss.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/kpjas_kitten_500.jpg


My counterpoint to that kitten is this nazi incinerating somebody with a flame thrower:

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/5474/25mq5.jpg

[Baron Max]

A simple question about form of argument:

• Member A makes assertion.
• Member B offers counterpoint.
• Member A ignores counterpoint, repeats assertion.

Now, sometimes people will repeat themselves immediately, and sometimes they will let it pass, and at some point in the future, perhaps in a different thread, reiterate the original assertion without ever having addressed the counterpoint.

Is this what you would call a good form of argument? Is it even valid as a form of argument?

I think it's terrible, Tiassa! And I think that anyone who argues in that manner should be castrated with a sledgehammer, then drawn and quartered by four large Belgian workhorses in the town square on Saturday evening.

And, Tiassa, just to show you how very much I like you, tell me who that snivelin' bastard is, where he lives, and I'll hunt the sonuvabitch down myself. :D

Baron Max

[glaucon]

Tiassa,

By definition, it is neither a good argument, nor even an argument at all.
Besides the example you've provided, one could simply take a look at any post by lixluke.

[leopold99]

I mean, who are you going to trust? A doctor who runs the tests, considers the results, and says you're healthy, or some random person who tells you you're dying of cancer? Who here would take legal advice from me over an attorney?
in the world of peer review it isn't so much of who but of what.
i would trust verified test results, it wouldn't matter who delivered them.
barring that i would trust my own logic and experience.
if that was barred then i could not come to any conclusions.

usually when you run into a situation as described in the OP you are dealing with a poster that is just galloping around the forum with nothing to do. if we can assume B isn't on A's ignore list then the ignored post presents something that is uncomfortable to B, or B cannot mount an effective argument against it. if B continues with their argument then you can assume you are dealing with someone that is intellectually dishonest.
-in my opinion.

[Tiassa]

in the world of peer review it isn't so much of who but of what.
i would trust verified test results, it wouldn't matter who delivered them.

Fair enough.

if we can assume B isn't on A's ignore list then the ignored post presents something that is uncomfortable to B, or B cannot mount an effective argument against it. if B continues with their argument then you can assume you are dealing with someone that is intellectually dishonest.

I wanted to check with you on this part ... the one waiting for a response ...? Well, is that a typo, or am I simply confusing myself?

[Asguard]

tiassa there are alot of reasons why this could happen, especially over a long period of time. For instance i paticipate in ALOT of debates here, i dont always read every post ever said in everyone one of them due to time constraints. I might drop in what i think is a relivent point and then never look at the thread again, especially if it goes from 1 page to 20 overnight.

There is also the problem of memory, you might forget you have already put that argument months or even years ago

[inzomnia]

A simple question about form of argument:

• Member A makes assertion.
• Member B offers counterpoint.
• Member A ignores counterpoint, repeats assertion.

Now, sometimes people will repeat themselves immediately, and sometimes they will let it pass, and at some point in the future, perhaps in a different thread, reiterate the original assertion without ever having addressed the counterpoint.

Is this what you would call a good form of argument? Is it even valid as a form of argument?

(The previous version of this thread had irreconcilable poll error. Sorry about that.)


Well, members are vary in their reading comprehension skill and knowledge level. When member A ignores counterpoint and repeats assertion, it could be that:

Member A has reading comprehension problem and so does not recognize that a counterpoint has been addressed.
Member A has insufficient knowledge to understand the counterpoint being addressed.
Member B (who offers counterpoint) does not write his idea clearly (difficult to understand).
Member B write his counterpoint too long, so A get lost in reading B post. No insinuation here, Tiassa :p. Sometimes if people write too long, I lose interest in reading the overall post, or I just forget some details..
Member A is stubborn or just want to troll

and many other possibilities..

[leopold99]

I wanted to check with you on this part ... the one waiting for a response ...? Well, is that a typo, or am I simply confusing myself?
i got A and B reversed, sorry about that.

[Tiassa]

i got A and B reversed, sorry about that.

Thank ye. I rather suspected, but stranger things have happened here.

• • •

Asguard & Inzomnia

I don't disagree with either of you on the point of other possible reasons.

How often do you think those issues come up?

[Asguard]

quite frequently, look how many DP debates we have over the same issues again and again with nothing new

[Challenger78]

I'm going to ignore the subject of this thread and post a picture of a kitten.

http://kittenbliss.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/kpjas_kitten_500.jpg

That is CUTE!..

--> Thread Derailed.

[inzomnia]

Thank ye. I rather suspected, but stranger things have happened here.

• • •

Asguard & Inzomnia

I don't disagree with either of you on the point of other possible reasons.

How often do you think those issues come up?


I'd say quite often.

I'll be back to this thread, I have to go now.

[inzomnia]

I'm sorry, I nearly forget to come back to this thread. However, at this moment I have no further comment.

[Tiassa]

I'd say quite often.

I'll take a brief moment on each of your points:

• Member A has reading comprehension problem and so does not recognize that a counterpoint has been addressed.

I recognize this possibility. How many times, then, should one (or others) try to make the point?

• Member A has insufficient knowledge to understand the counterpoint being addressed.

This I can understand, but I'm curious, then, why Member A would stubbornly repeat the assertion over and over and over again. Why not pick at the counterpoint piece by comprehensible piece?

• Member B (who offers counterpoint) does not write his idea clearly (difficult to understand).

I suppose the next question would be to wonder if every issue—or, perhaps, on a case by case basis, any given issue—can necessarily be contained in simple rhetoric.

• Member B write his counterpoint too long, so A get lost in reading B post. No insinuation here, Tiassa :p. Sometimes if people write too long, I lose interest in reading the overall post, or I just forget some details.

I actually agree, but there is a different problem that arises when cutting to the short form. In the first place, the long form often attempts to address diverse aspects of an argument. For instance, let us consider arguments about homosexual marriage. Why not polygamy, then? Well, the basis of the gay marriage argument is equal protection, which does not yet apply to a difference in numbers. Seems like a fairly simple argument, to me. But why not incest? That one runs deeper, and requires anthropological, sociological, and psychological consideration at least. In this case, the short form often encourages miscommunication.

• Member A is stubborn or just want to troll.

Indeed, this is more the aspect I'm wondering about.

Reading comprehension problems often show themselves in the nature of the direct response to the counterpoint when the member approaches it from the wrong direction. This could be an error of the counterpoint's expression, but it could also be that the member is botching the context according to various factors including, but not limited to, assignment of presuppositions or emotional distortion. (Quite often, if you watch closely, members will assign their own meanings to words and sentences, instead of some semblance of understanding what the other means. This mechanism is often a key factor in certain, prominent forms of nitpicking.)

Additionally, I have become accustomed—perhaps spoiled—by the practice of people who find the limits of their knowledge exceeded actually making that fact known in ways more or less subtle, each to his or her own.

Certainly, though, errors in the presentation of the counterpoint cannot be overlooked. Unfortunately, accounting for that possibility tends to make posts longer.

Which leads to an old question I used to ask repeatedly in consideration of the length of my own posts: Should I spend 2,000-3,000 words at once, covering as many aspects of the issue as I can in one post, or should I spend 5,000 words over ten posts with no guarantee that, at the end, the course of the discussion will allow establishment of the vital connections between A, B, and C? (Should one try to make the point, or spend even more words taking the risk that the point is never made, thus complicating the discussion further?)

These problems do, in fact, have solutions. They're not always easy, but it's not like trying to perform brain surgery with a tablespoon in the middle of an earthquake, or anything. In other words, with appropriate patience and care, these issues can be resolved if both members genuinely want to discuss the point.

Which brings us 'round to trolling, which is the reason I ask these questions in the first place.

[hypewaders]

I think it comes down to our shifting objectives in conversation- to know, show, or snow.

In other words, we approach conversations with the intent to experience a new point of view; and we can reach out to provide the same to another; or we can obscure our verbal show-and-tell with endless distractions.

I'm often frustrated by snow-troll encounters. I know the need for variety in casual conversation- the need to know, show, and even snow- I too revel in kicking up a completely inappropriate ruckus myself now and then. But it's still unfathomably sad to consider people who monotonously and denyingly insist that they have nothing to show, obscured in their snow, avoiding the know.

But the mysterious snow-troll is not an empty being. They're pretending; playing possum. I have no fear of stumbling through a blizzard of chaff smack dab into a black-hole horror of human emptiness. That dark void is palpable at first encounter, like looking into dead eyes that we instantly recognize have nothing to say. I know that trolls are not zombie monsters, but I hate their feigned numbness, and that slouching advance. Wait. There's one lurking, and lurching into one of my favorite traps threads right now. Gotta go :jason:

[Betrayer0fHope]

A simple question about form of argument:

• Member A makes assertion.
• Member B offers counterpoint.
• Member A ignores counterpoint, repeats assertion.

Now, sometimes people will repeat themselves immediately, and sometimes they will let it pass, and at some point in the future, perhaps in a different thread, reiterate the original assertion without ever having addressed the counterpoint.

Is this what you would call a good form of argument? Is it even valid as a form of argument?

(The previous version of this thread had irreconcilable poll error. Sorry about that.)

The obvious answer is no, but I just realized that when talking to OIM, you need to repeat a lot of shit a lot of times.

[Tiassa]

The obvious answer is no, but I just realized that when talking to OIM, you need to repeat a lot of shit a lot of times.

I didn't realize quite what you were saying until I noticed your vote. Very, very interesting, sir. A turn of the table, or a turn of the screw?

[inzomnia]

I'll take a brief moment on each of your points:

• Member A has reading comprehension problem and so does not recognize that a counterpoint has been addressed.

I recognize this possibility. How many times, then, should one (or others) try to make the point?

• Member A has insufficient knowledge to understand the counterpoint being addressed.

This I can understand, but I'm curious, then, why Member A would stubbornly repeat the assertion over and over and over again. Why not pick at the counterpoint piece by comprehensible piece?


Well, in this case (where member A has reading comprehension problem and/or insufficient knowledge level), member B should willing to go into member A's level. Let say that:
- the topic of argumentation is in high school level
- member B is in university level, and
- member A is in elementary school level

Member A would hardly understand member B, if member B talk in university level or even in high school level, even if member B offers a 100% correct argument. In opposite to that, member B would have no problem to talk to member A in elementary level. Now, if member B don't want to go into member A's level, then it's better that member B don't bother to respond to A. It's not about how many times member B should try to make point, but how effective the point can be addressed.

[inzomnia]

• Member B (who offers counterpoint) does not write his idea clearly (difficult to understand).

I suppose the next question would be to wonder if every issue—or, perhaps, on a case by case basis, any given issue—can necessarily be contained in simple rhetoric.

• Member B write his counterpoint too long, so A get lost in reading B post. No insinuation here, Tiassa :p. Sometimes if people write too long, I lose interest in reading the overall post, or I just forget some details.

I actually agree, but there is a different problem that arises when cutting to the short form. In the first place, the long form often attempts to address diverse aspects of an argument. For instance, let us consider arguments about homosexual marriage. Why not polygamy, then? Well, the basis of the gay marriage argument is equal protection, which does not yet apply to a difference in numbers. Seems like a fairly simple argument, to me. But why not incest? That one runs deeper, and requires anthropological, sociological, and psychological consideration at least. In this case, the short form often encourages miscommunication.


Firstly, I have to say that I am not an expert in writing argument, so please don't take my words for granted. This is just my observation.

There are members who tend to write long, such as: you (Tiassa), Fraggle Rocker, Greenberg, to name a few. While your posts quality are above average level, it is pretty useless in facing member A's type. If your objective is to include member A among your 'audience', you should try to write as concise as possible, especially in direct confrontation with member A.

We can take Read-Only as an example. He rarely writes in more than 2 paragraphs. He also often put bold or italic to emphasis important word. While the quality of his posting reminds high, it is easier to understand for member A's level.

Another example is James R. He would normally replies line by line and to the point.

Other examples are Carcano, Syzygys, One_raven. They rarely write long post unless it is very necessary. However, their ideas most of the time are clear. Your idea by dividing 5000 words into 10 posts rather than 1 post perhaps would be much more effective, if you really wish to deal with member A's type.

[inzomnia]

• Member A is stubborn or just want to troll.

Indeed, this is more the aspect I'm wondering about.

Reading comprehension problems often show themselves in the nature of the direct response to the counterpoint when the member approaches it from the wrong direction. This could be an error of the counterpoint's expression, but it could also be that the member is botching the context according to various factors including, but not limited to, assignment of presuppositions or emotional distortion. (Quite often, if you watch closely, members will assign their own meanings to words and sentences, instead of some semblance of understanding what the other means. This mechanism is often a key factor in certain, prominent forms of nitpicking.)

Additionally, I have become accustomed—perhaps spoiled—by the practice of people who find the limits of their knowledge exceeded actually making that fact known in ways more or less subtle, each to his or her own.

Certainly, though, errors in the presentation of the counterpoint cannot be overlooked. Unfortunately, accounting for that possibility tends to make posts longer.

Which leads to an old question I used to ask repeatedly in consideration of the length of my own posts: Should I spend 2,000-3,000 words at once, covering as many aspects of the issue as I can in one post, or should I spend 5,000 words over ten posts with no guarantee that, at the end, the course of the discussion will allow establishment of the vital connections between A, B, and C? (Should one try to make the point, or spend even more words taking the risk that the point is never made, thus complicating the discussion further?)

These problems do, in fact, have solutions. They're not always easy, but it's not like trying to perform brain surgery with a tablespoon in the middle of an earthquake, or anything. In other words, with appropriate patience and care, these issues can be resolved if both members genuinely want to discuss the point.

Which brings us 'round to trolling, which is the reason I ask these questions in the first place.


In case member A wants to troll, why would you bother to respond? Let me take Reiku, for example. People argued with him over and over again in pointless discussions. In another forum that I know (Spurious's), Reiku was a moderator, he has his own sub forum. He gave up posting there because no one took him seriously. So why not focus on topics and/or posters that you can take seriously instead of trying to argue with the type that makes you feel exhausted? After all, if no one take them seriously or stop responding to them, they will feel tired, and might start to be serious as well.

I appologize if what I say about Reiku is not correct. I know him just a little, and outside all of his post in physics & math and pseudoscience, he was a nice person.

[inzomnia]

I divided my opinion above into 3 posts, not because you are member A's type, Tiassa, but it is rather easier for me to do so. :p

[Tiassa]

Member A would hardly understand member B, if member B talk in university level or even in high school level, even if member B offers a 100% correct argument. In opposite to that, member B would have no problem to talk to member A in elementary level. Now, if member B don't want to go into member A's level, then it's better that member B don't bother to respond to A. It's not about how many times member B should try to make point, but how effective the point can be addressed.

Did you ever have one of those occasions where someone said something and suddenly a longstanding conflict fell into context? It's sort of a feeling of, "Well, shit, why didn't anyone say that before?" I think it happens to most of us, but I won't make any promises.

There are, however, issues where providing that connection for someone becomes a complete mystery, and often it seems a matter of will. Social, historical, political, and philosophical issues, among others, are frequent sources of this problem.

To take a question not quite at random: How can one appeal to the hierarchy of laws when the goal they advocate violates that very hierarchy?

Or, how can one say that an outcome depending on a specific criterion is devoid of that criterion?

In a more specific sense, one might ask, How can you appeal to the rule of law while rejecting the "supreme law of the land" at the top of this particular hierarchy of laws? Or, How can you claim there is no sexism when sex is the determining criterion of the standard?

If this confuses Member A, he or she can certainly ask, "What do you mean?" However, it seems problematic to simply reiterate the argument without addressing the counterpoint. Of course, to simply say, "That makes no sense!" would, eventually, oblige Member A to explain what doesn't make sense. So the route taken would be to simply ignore the counterpoint and repeat the original assertion.

There are many factors such as you've raised that can be taken into account, but if the situation seems to suggest these aren't the problem, what then?

The problem with adjusting the counterpoint for efficacy comes when the member tacitly refuses to explain what he or she finds problematic about the counterpoint.

Your idea by dividing 5000 words into 10 posts rather than 1 post perhaps would be much more effective, if you really wish to deal with member A's type.

One of the complications of that process, though, arises when Member A, as such, is popping off thirty-second responses. Even if you draft ten posts offline and then post them in order, it is possible to have digressive responses pop up in between.

Is the object of posting to "hear ourselves talk"? Or is it to communicate? Over the nine years I've been here, I have before dealt with second and third members coming in and wondering why Member A's "argument" wasn't addressed.

Thus, Member A's first responses to that sequence of posts might well be misguided because they pretend each of the ten segments are independent of one another, so how can one communicate a broader argument? (If you criticize a novel, for instance, saying that it is full of irrelevancies and leaves too many loose ends, does it matter whether or not you've read the whole thing? I would say yes, but that's just me.)

Breaking an idea into smaller segments isn't the same as breaking a chocolate bar into little pieces. The continuity and interrelationships of the various tributary ideas start to disconnect. Instead of streams flowing into a river, we're left with ponds at best, or maybe a handful of puddles to dry up over time.

It should also be pointed out that many short-form posters are grossly misinterpreted, and while this often derives from a separate problem, it is not unrelated.

And, additionally, many short-form arguments aren't arguments at all. We once had a member argue for capital punishment by expressly wishing for the families of other members to be murdered. Frankly, that's not much of an argument. One could, I suppose, presume a more complicated context, but I used to frequently ask members how much of their thinking they wanted me to do for them.

I understand that people want to say what they want to say, although many short-form posters don't want to put much effort into it.

In case member A wants to troll, why would you bother to respond? Let me take Reiku, for example. People argued with him over and over again in pointless discussions.

Is there a taxonomy of trolls, perhaps? I can't say for sure, but it seems that diversity requires certain differences of principle and form.

Reiku's problems are a bit complicated; he once tried being honest, presenting elements of his real self, and people torched him. How that affected his decisions related to other issues—e.g., pseudoscience vs. science—is a big question mark, but I can't imagine it helped any.

But I do think his form of trolling has significant aspects that are considerably different from the question at hand, and I'm unsure of how much weight to give them, or how to relate them to the present consideration in any reasonably efficient manner.

I divided my opinion above into 3 posts, not because you are member A's type, Tiassa, but it is rather easier for me to do so. :p

Fair enough.

I will mention that we do, actually, have something of a policy that discourages consecutive posting in a short period. That is not intended as a complaint, but, rather, a reflection. Perhaps it is time we reconsider that rule. In the meantime, my time here has accustomed me to generally trying to avoid consecutive short posts. I'll give it some thought.